{"id":138752,"date":"2010-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-09T02:14:05","modified_gmt":"2017-04-08T20:44:05","slug":"whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCRA\/196\/1993\t 45\/ 45\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 196 of 1993\n \n\nWITH\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 10830 of 2005\n \n\nIN\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 196 of 1993\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ \t\t\tSd\/- \n===================================\n<\/pre>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
YES<\/p>\n
2.<\/p>\n
To
\n\t\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n
YES<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
NO<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the
\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n<\/p>\n
NO<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n
NO<\/p>\n
===================================<\/p>\n
PATEL
\nKANJIBHAI AMBALAL & 7 – Applicants<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
MODI
\nMANJULABEN BABULAL WD\/O.BABULAL CHUNILAL – Opponents<\/p>\n
===================================
\nAppearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
MR
\nKV SHELAT WITH MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioners.
\nMS JIRGA D
\nJHAVERI for Opponents.\n<\/p>\n
===================================<\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ<\/p>\n
Date
\n: 22\/10\/2010
\nCAV JUDGMENT <\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tpetitioners – original defendants have filed this Civil
\n\tRevision Application under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Control
\n\tAct challenging the judgment and order dated 13.11.1992 passed by
\n\tthe learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana Camp at Patan in Regular
\n\tCivil Appeal No. 70 of 1989 dismissing the said appeal and
\n\tconfirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge
\n\ton 31.07.1989 in Regular Civil Suit No.181 of 1983.  The learned
\n\tTrial Judge has directed all the defendants to hand over the vacant
\n\tand peaceful possession of the suit shop to the respondents who are
\n\tthe legal heirs of the original plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Civil
\n\tRevision Application was admitted and rule was issued on 18.06.1993.
\n\t At the time of admission of the Civil Revision Application, the
\n\tCourt has passed detailed order observing therein that the Trial
\n\tCourt’s finding is that the partnership is sham and bogus and on
\n\tthat point, reliance was placed on Clause 19 in the Partnership Deed
\n\tat Exh.76.  On reading the Partnership Deed as a whole, it is clear
\n\tthat it is not a clear cut clause specifying that the original
\n\ttenant i.e. defendant No.3 has thrown the tenancy rights of the suit
\n\tshop expressly in the assets of the firm.  However, Clause 19 speaks
\n\tabout the cooperation to be given by the said defendant whenever the
\n\tsuit rent note is to be transferred in the name of the firm.  There
\n\tis also Clause 20 which says that if at all the landlord files a
\n\tsuit for the purpose of possession, partner No.4 i.e. the tenant
\n\tAmbalal Prabhudas will have to bear expenses.  Therefore, that
\n\tClause has not been considered at all by the learned Appellate
\n\tJudge.  The Court was, therefore, of the view that the present Civil
\n\tRevision Application requires some consideration by this Court.  The
\n\tCourt has also prima facie found that if at all it was the asset of
\n\tthe partnership firm, then, it was not necessary to put this clause
\n\tbecause when the partnership firm is getting benefits of tenancy
\n\trights, why partner No.4 alone should bear the expenses.  That
\n\tindicates that still the tenancy rights are intact with the
\n\tdefendant No.3.  But that aspect requires consideration.  The Court
\n\thas also considered the point that the Appellate Court has confirmed
\n\tthe finding with regard to the bonafide and reasonable requirement
\n\tof the plaintiff and the point of hardship is also answered in
\n\tfavour of the plaintiff under the inference on the point of
\n\tsubletting and bogus partnership. The Court, therefore, granted
\n\tinterim relief against eviction.\n<\/p>\n
\tCivil
\n\tApplication No.10830 of 2005 is filed by the applicants –
\n\toriginal petitioners seeking permission to produce the documents
\n\treferred to in the Civil Application and to consider the changed
\n\tcircumstances pleaded.  Alternatively, it is prayed that the matter
\n\tmay be sent to the lower Court for re-trial and for consideration of
\n\tthe additional evidence in the interest of justice.  The additional
\n\tevidence sought to be produced are (1) an order passed by the Income
\n\tTax Officer under Section 185 (1) of the Act on 05.09.1986 and (2)
\n\tthe Income-tax returns of Shri Laxmi Plywood Center for A.Y. 1991-92
\n\talong with statement of income.  This application was strongly
\n\topposed by the learned advocate appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe brief
\n\tfacts giving rise to the present Civil Revision Application are that
\n\tthe suit property is suit shop situated in village Patan in
\n\tHinglachachar area, Tika No.111\/2, Survey No.12, ground floor
\n\tMunicipal Census No.1\/6\/12.  As per the case of the plaintiff –
\n\tlandlord, the defendant No.1 firm in the name of Patel Kanjibhai
\n\tAmbalal and Company was doing the business at Patan and its
\n\tpartners, defendant Nos.2 & 3, namely, Mulchandbhai Valabhai and
\n\tPatel Ambalal Prabhudas had taken on rent the suit shop from the
\n\tplaintiff on 03.12.1973 for 11 months and 29 days, with monthly rent
\n\tof Rs.100\/-.  The tenant had to pay rent regularly with municipal
\n\ttax and Govt. tax of the suit shop.  The suit shop was taken on rent
\n\tfor running the business of grocery shop.  There was a clear cut
\n\tterm that after expiration of the lease period, the tenant had to
\n\tgive possession back to the landlord and the tenant had not to
\n\tsublet, assign or transfer the suit shop etc.  The tenant had not
\n\thanded over the possession of the suit shop as per the terms of the
\n\trent note and hence, the tenant became statutory tenant.  The
\n\tdefendant Nos.2 & 3 have thereafter closed the business of
\n\tgrocery and have sublet the suit shop to defendant No.4 Laxmi
\n\tPlywood Center and their Partners.  The have handed over the
\n\tabsolute and exclusive possession of the suit shop to defendant No.4
\n\tand its partners.  The defendant Nos.2 & 3, therefore, have lost
\n\tthe protection as tenant.  The business of the suit shop was also
\n\tchanged from grocery to selling materials of construction.  Thus,
\n\tthe plaintiffs have demanded possession of the suit shop under
\n\tSection 13 (1) (a) of the Rent Control Act.  The plaintiffs have
\n\talso demanded the possession of the suit shop under Section 13 (1)\n<\/p>\n
\t(g) for reasonable and bonafide requirement as plaintiff’s son was
\n\tmajor and he was not keeping good health and the plaintiff was also
\n\tan aged person.  The defendant Nos.1 to 3 had paid rent upto
\n\t02.01.1983 and they were tenants in arrears of rent for more than
\n\tsix months.  The tenancy was, therefore, terminated.  The defendant
\n\tNos.4 to 8 are not the tenants of the suit shop and they have no
\n\tlegal right.  Since they were in physical possession of the suit
\n\tshop, the defendants were served with notice dated 15.07.1983 and
\n\tthereafter the plaintiffs have filed the suit to recover vacant and
\n\tpeaceful possession of the suit shop from all the defendants and
\n\tRs.1,000\/- for arrears of rent from the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and
\n\tdemanded mesne profits upto the date of receiving possession.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt appears
\n\tfrom the record that the defendant Nos.1 & 2, though were duly
\n\tserved, remained absent and hence, ex-parte decree was passed
\n\tagainst them.  The defendant Nos.3 to 8 had filed their written
\n\tstatement at Exh.12 and have raised several disputes.  As per the
\n\tdefence raised by the defendants, the defendant No.3 was the subject
\n\ttenant and he had not sublet the suit property to the defendants.
\n\tThe defendant No.3 was in physical possession of the suit property
\n\tand he was doing the business in the name of defendant No.4 firm,
\n\tnamely, Laxmi Plywood Center.  The defendant Nos.5 to 8 are partners
\n\twith defendant No.3 in the partnership firm of defendant No.4.  They
\n\thave also raised a defence that the plaintiffs have fixed the rent
\n\tat Rs.100\/- per month which is exclusive and previously the rent of
\n\tthe suit was less.  Hence, they have also made the request to fix
\n\tthe standard rent.  It is also their defence that the original
\n\tpartnership had come to an end on 06.09.1980 and thereafter, the
\n\tdefendant No.3 became sole owner of the firm.  The defendant No.3
\n\talone continued the business in the suit shop and since he was not
\n\tsuccessful in the business and suffered financial loss, he had
\n\tstarted the business in partnership from 11.02.1983 in the name of
\n\tM\/s. Laxmi Plywood Center and started business of hardware, plywood,
\n\tglassware etc.  The defendant Nos.5,6 & 7 were partners along
\n\twith defendant No.3 and the defendant No.8 was minor at that time.
\n\tHence, he was admitted to the benefits of the partnership.  The
\n\tdefendant No.8 after he became major, was made the partner in the
\n\tpartnership firm.  It is also their defence that the defendant No.3
\n\twas continued even after expiration of the period of rent note and
\n\tunder the consent of the plaintiff.  The defendant No.3 had not
\n\tsublet, transferred or assigned the possession of the suit shop as
\n\talleged by the plaintiff.  They have also raised the defence that
\n\tthe plaintiff was not physically weak and he was in service in the
\n\tGanj Bazaar with Dalal Nagardas Firm.  They have sufficient income
\n\tto maintain their family and they are not required the possession of
\n\tthe suit shop for business for himself or his son.  The plaintiffs
\n\twanted more rent and the defendants had refused to increase the rent
\n\tand it is only because of that, a false suit was filed against them.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Trial
\n\tCourt after framing issues at Exh.14 and after appreciating the oral
\n\tas well as documentary evidence on record had come to the conclusion
\n\tthat the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are tenants of suit property and the
\n\tplaintiffs have proved that defendant Nos.2 & 3 have sublet,
\n\ttransferred and assigned the suit premises to defendant Nos.4 to 8.
\n\tThe Trial Court has further held that the plaintiffs have proved
\n\tthat the possession of the suit shop is required by them reasonably
\n\tand bonafide for business.  The Trial Court further held that the
\n\tdefendant No.3 had failed to prove that defendant Nos.5 to 8 are
\n\tpartners and doing business in partnership firm with him.  Thus, the
\n\tTrial Court had granted possession decree in favour of the
\n\tplaintiffs – landlord.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis judgment
\n\tand decree was confirmed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge,
\n\tMehsana in Regular Civil Appeal No.70 of 1989 and the defendants
\n\twere directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the
\n\tsuit shop to the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is this
\n\torder which is under challenge in the present Civil Revision
\n\tApplication.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Suresh M.\n<\/p>\n
\tShah, learned advocate appearing with Mr. K. V. Shelat for the
\n\tpetitioners has submitted that the plaintiff – landlord has
\n\tgot other premises where he was actually residing and there was no
\n\texisting bonafide need of the landlord to occupy the suit premises
\n\tand the landlord has not led any evidence worth its name.  The lower
\n\tAppellate Court has misread and misunderstood the documentary
\n\tevidence consisting of the books of accounts of defendant No.1 firm
\n\twhich clearly shows that the defendant No.3 is a genuine partner of
\n\tdefendant No.4 and the legal possession of the suit premises have
\n\tnot been parted with at all.  He has further submitted that the
\n\tlower Appellate Court has given undue weightage to the evidence of
\n\tthe plaintiff and has drawn illegal presumptions inferences which
\n\tare in the nature of conjectures.           The lower Appellate
\n\tCourt has considered the question of bonafide and reasonable
\n\tpersonal requirement and hardship from a wrong angle and applied a
\n\twrong test to decide the said question.  There is nothing on record
\n\tto show that alternative accommodation is available to the
\n\tdefendants.  There is no bonafide and reasonable personal
\n\trequirement on the part of the plaintiffs to occupy the suit
\n\tpremises.  The concept of legal possession and parting with
\n\tpossession as contemplated under Section 13 (1) (e) of Rent Control
\n\tAct has not been correctly appreciated by the lower Appellate Court.
\n\t The defendant No.1 firm was a registered partnership firm paying
\n\tincome tax and the sale tax and also taken huge loan from the Banks
\n\tand in all departments, the defendant No.3 is shown and has acted as
\n\tthe legal partner of the firm.  He has, therefore, submitted that
\n\tthe judgment and decree passed by the lower Courts are absolutely
\n\terroneous, improper and unjust and, therefore, require to be set
\n\taside.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of
\n\tCivil Application filed for production of additional evidence, Mr.
\n\tShah relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Adil
\n\tJamshed Frenchman (Dead) by Lrs., V\/s. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust
\n\tand others, (2005) 2 SCC 476, wherein it is held that while
\n\tconsidering the bonafide requirement of landlord, subsequent events
\n\tare required to be taken into consideration.  Production of
\n\tadditional evidence before the Appellate Court is permissible.
\n\tEviction suit based on bonafide need of landlord and decree was
\n\tpassed on that ground.  Tenant in appeal seeking to adduce two
\n\tdocuments which came into existence after passing of said decree,
\n\tand third document relating to correspondence of landlord with third
\n\tparties, it is held that document sought to be produced by tenant
\n\twere material and if substantiated, would have a material effect on
\n\tthe case of the landlord of their bonafide need of the suit
\n\tpremises.   One document relating to sale of suit premises by
\n\tlandlords, second to a change in construction plans from those
\n\tplaced before Trial Court to establish bonafide need, the change
\n\tbeing the decision not to demolish superstructure raised by tenant,
\n\tand third document indicating lack of funds for said construction on
\n\tthe part of landlord.  Correspondence entered into by landlord with
\n\ta third party could not have been within knowledge of tenant and the
\n\tother two documents having come into existence after decree of trial
\n\tcourt, tenant’s statement that said documents could not have been
\n\tproduced before trial court, inspite of exercise of due diligence,
\n\tis accepted as credible.  In such circumstances, the High Court
\n\tunder Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure was not justified in
\n\tinterfering with the discretion exercised by the first Appellate
\n\tCourt, permitting production of additional evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tWadi V\/s. Amilal and others, JT 2002 (6) SC 16, it is held
\n\tthat Rule 27 deals with production of additional evidence in the
\n\tappellate Court.  The general principle incorporated in sub-rule (1)
\n\tis that the parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce
\n\tadditional evidence (oral or documentary) in the appellate court to
\n\tcure a lacuna or fill up a gap in a case.  The exceptions to that
\n\tprinciple are enumerated thereunder in clauses (a), (a) and (b).  If
\n\tthe appellate court requires any document to be produced or any
\n\twitness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, it may
\n\tallow such document to be produced or witness to be examined.  The
\n\trequirement or need is that of the appellate Court bearing in mind
\n\tthat the interest of justice is paramount.  If it feels that
\n\tpronouncing a judgment in the absence of such evidence would result
\n\tin a defective decision and to pronounce an effective judgment
\n\tadmission of such evidence is necessary, clause (b) enables it to
\n\tadopt that course.  Invocation of clause (b) does not depend upon
\n\tthe vigilance or negligence of the parties for it is not meant for
\n\tthem.  It is for the appellant to resort to it when on a
\n\tconsideration of material on record, it feels that admission of
\n\tadditional evidence is necessary to pronounce a satisfactory
\n\tjudgment in the case.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of
\n\this submission that creating of partnership and use of the suit
\n\tpremises by the firm and other partners along with the petitioner,
\n\twould not amount to subletting, Mr. Shelat relied on the following
\n\tdecisions :-\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tHelper Girdharbhai V\/s. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and others,
\n\t(1987) 3 SCC 538 wherein it is held that the tenant becoming a
\n\tpartner of the partnership firm and allowing the firm to carry on
\n\tbusiness in the demised premises while himself retaining the legal
\n\tpossession thereof, does not amount to subletting.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tMohmmedkasam Haji Gulambhai V\/s. Bakerali Fatehali (Dead) by
\n\tLrs., (1998) 7 SCC 608, it is held that on the question of
\n\tsubletting etc. law is now very explicit. There is prohibition in
\n\tabsolute terms on the tenant from subletting, assignment of
\n\tdisposition of his interest in the tenanted premises.  Clause (e) of
\n\tSection 13(1) of the Act is couched in widest terms. There is
\n\tabsolute prohibition on the tenant from subletting, assigning or
\n\ttransferring in any other manner his interest in the tenanted
\n\tpremises. There appears to be no way around this subject of course
\n\tif there is any contract to the contrary between the landlord and
\n\tthe tenant. In partnership where tenant is a partner, he retains
\n\tlegal possession of the premises as partnership is a compendium of
\n\tnames of all the partners. In partnership the tenant does not divest
\n\thimself of his right in the premises.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tShah Chatrabhuj Narshi and another V\/s. Nensibhai Shavanjibhai
\n\tGohil and another, 1980 (21) GLR 377, the Division Bench of this
\n\tCourt has held that the real crux of the problem under Section 13
\n\t(1) (e) of the Rent Act, is whether the tenancy rights are thrown
\n\tinto partnership assets or for that matter any interest is created
\n\ttherein in favour of the incoming partners.  The question has to be
\n\tdecided in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act and the
\n\tBombay Rent Act.  The Court further held that the real test is the
\n\tintention of the parties, and if the document creates an interest in
\n\tthe property, it is a lease, and the factum of exclusive possession
\n\tof a property by a person, prima facie, indicates that he is
\n\ta tenant.  The test of exclusive possession, therefore, cannot be
\n\tconclusive.  Ultimately, it is the intention of the parties, whether
\n\tthey intend to create an interest in the property and that would be
\n\tdetermined along with the other circumstances when a question arises
\n\twhether a lease or sub-lease is created or not.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tM\/s. Madras Bangalore Transport Company (West) V\/s. Inder Singh
\n\tand others, AIR 1986 SC 1564, it is held that there was no
\n\tsubletting, assignment or parting with possession of the premises by
\n\tthe firm to the Limited Company so as to attract Section 14 (1) (b).
\n\t The firm continued to be in occupation of the premises even after
\n\tthe private limited company came in.  The firm never effaced
\n\tthemselves.  The firm allowed the private limited company to
\n\tfunction from the same premises but the private limited company,
\n\tthough a separate legal entity, was in fact a creature of the
\n\tpartners of the firm and was the very image of the firm.  The
\n\tlimited company and the partnership firm were two only in name but
\n\tone for practical purposes.  There was substantial identity between
\n\tthe limited company and the partnership firm.  As such even though
\n\tthe firm and company were distinct legal entities there was no
\n\tsubletting or assignment etc.<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tMehta Jagjivan Vanechand  V\/s. Doshi Vanechand Harakhchand and
\n\tothers, 1971 (2) GLR 487, wherein this Court has held that
\n\tmerely because the tenant continues to carry on the business in the
\n\tsame shop as hither to, but takes in two partners, the legal
\n\tpossession of the shop does not change hands.  Legal possession is a
\n\tconcept which must be distinguished from the concept of physical
\n\toccupation or user.  One who occupies or uses a premises is not
\n\tnecessarily in legal possession of the premises.  Even if the
\n\tpartners of the firm attend the shop and do business along with the
\n\ttenant, it cannot be said that they are in legal possession of the
\n\tshop.  Therefore, taking in a partner in a business does not amount
\n\tto subletting the premises.  Subletting postulates two distinct
\n\tpersons – the head tenant and the sub-tenant.  Their rights
\n\tand obligations are different.  One cannot be one’s own sub-tenant.
\n\tIf the transaction of taking in partners constitutes subletting, the
\n\ttenant will be head-tenant and he himself along with his two
\n\tpartners will be the sub-tenants.  The Court took the view that
\n\tthere had been no assignment or subletting in favour of the partners
\n\tof the firm by the tenant so as to attract the bar of Section 13 (1)\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of
\n\this submission that grant of relief dehorse the pleadings in the
\n\tplaint is impermissible, Mr. Shelat relied on the following
\n\tdecisions :-\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tSayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal V\/s. Badagara
\n\tJumayathpalli Dharas Committee and others, (2004) 7 SCC 708 wherein
\n\tit is held that when the plaintiff came forward specifically
\n\tpleading that he was entitled to declaration of title and for
\n\trecovery of possession of the plaint schedule property based on the
\n\tagreement deed, it could succeed only on the basis of validity of
\n\tthat document and the validity of transfer of mutawalliship in its
\n\tfavour.  Since all the Courts have concurrently found that
\n\tmutawalliship could not be validly transferred in favour of the
\n\tplaintiff Committee under the said document, the suit filed by the
\n\tplaintiff ought to have been dismissed.  The plaintiff could only
\n\tsucceed on the strength of its case and not on the weakness found in
\n\tthe case of the defendant, if any.  Even otherwise, the finding of
\n\tthe High Court on question 3 cannot be sustained when such a case
\n\tdid not arise for consideration in the absence of necessary pleading
\n\tin the plaint in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tState Bank of India and others V\/s. S. N. Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92
\n\twherein it is held that in absence of appropriate pleading on a
\n\tparticular issue, there can be no adjudication of such issue.
\n\tAdjudication of a dispute by a Civil Court is significantly
\n\tdifferent from exercise of power of judicial review in a writ
\n\tproceedings by the High Court.  In a writ proceedings, the High
\n\tCourt can call for record of the order challenged, examine the same
\n\tand pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity to the State
\n\tor the statutory authority to explain any particular act or
\n\tomission.  In a civil suit, parties are governed by rules of
\n\tpleadings and there can be no adjudication of an issue in the
\n\tabsence of necessary pleadings.  The Court further held that the
\n\tCode of Civil Procedure contains appropriate provisions relating to
\n\tinterrogatories, discovery and inspection (Order 11, Rules 1, 12 and\n<\/p>\n
\t15) to gain access to relevant material available with the other
\n\tparty.  A party to a suit should avail those provisions and if any
\n\tnew ground becomes available on the basis of information secured by
\n\tdiscovery a party can amend its pleadings and introduce new facts
\n\tand grounds which were not known earlier.  The difficulty in
\n\tsecuring relevant material or ignorance of existence of relevant
\n\tmaterial will not justify introduction of such material at the stage
\n\tof evidence in the absence of pleadings relating to a particular
\n\taspect to which the material relates.  If a party should be
\n\tpermitted to rely on evidence led on an issue \/ aspect not covered
\n\tby pleadings, the other side will be put to a disadvantage.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tVasudev Dhanji Varu – Decd. Through heirs and
\n\trepresentative and others V\/s. Bhogilal Manohardas Vaishnav, 1998
\n\t(1) GLH 728 wherein it is held that no evidence can be looked
\n\tinto for establishing a fact not pleaded.  The Court cannot grant
\n\trelief to the plaintiff on a case for which there was no foundation
\n\tin the pleadings and which the other side was not called upon or had
\n\tan opportunity to meet with.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tAbdul Samad Makhadum Baksh Sheikh and etc. V\/s. Sau Sudha Anant
\n\tParakhe, AIR 1982 BOMBAY 585 wherein it is held that it is
\n\telementary in civil cases that no party should be taken by surprise
\n\tand whatever case he has, has to be made out in the pleadings so
\n\tthat the defendant or the adversary has an adequate and reasonable
\n\topportunity to meet that case.  In the absence of any such pleading,
\n\tthe adversary would not be in a position to meet such a case.  No
\n\tcase, which is not pleaded in civil cases, is or can be allowed to
\n\tbe made out by any amount of evidence.  Such evidence has really to
\n\tbe ignored.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tHemaji Waghaji Jat V\/s. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and
\n\tothers, (2009) 16 SCC 517, the appellant – plaintiff filed
\n\ta suit for permanent injunction to declare him as the lawful owner
\n\tand occupier in respect of the suit land.  The appellant though was
\n\tin forcible possession of the suit land since 1960 till the decision
\n\tof the Trial Court in 1986, neither pleaded adverse possession nor
\n\tdid the trial court frame an issue of adverse possession.  The
\n\tappellant – plaintiff also failed to prove his title over the
\n\tsuit land before the first appellate court and the High Court in
\n\tSecond appeal.  The Apex Court while dismissing the appeal held that
\n\ta person who basis his title on adverse possession must show by
\n\tclear and unequivocal evidence that his title was hostile to the
\n\treal owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property
\n\tclaimed.  The ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession
\n\tis that it should be established that the possession required must
\n\tbe adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that
\n\tit is possession adverse to the competitor.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs. Jirgha D.\n<\/p>\n
\tJhaveri, learned advocate appearing for the respondents –
\n\tlandlord submitted that there are concurrent findings in favour of
\n\tthe plaintiffs. The plaintiffs require the suit premises for
\n\tpersonal occupation.  The rented premises where the original
\n\tplaintiffs and family reside are not sufficient to accommodate them.
\n\t While the tenant is not using the suit premises personally and has
\n\tsublet the same to a firm dealing in Plywood.  She has, therefore,
\n\tsubmitted that no such indulgence be given to the petitioners,
\n\tparticularly in view of the fact that they have not deposited any
\n\trent since 12.01.1993 and have committed breach of the general
\n\tcondition of payment of rents every month.  She has further
\n\tsubmitted that in view of the fact that they have committed default
\n\tin not depositing the rents since January 1993, they are deemed to
\n\thave lost protection of stay and execution and hence, the Civil
\n\tRevision Application deserves to be rejected.  Apart from the
\n\tbonafide personal requirement, the decree is passed for eviction for
\n\tunlawful and subletting and hence, the Civil Revision Application
\n\tought not to be entertained and allowed.  As regards occupation for
\n\tpersonal requirement, the material facts are that the original
\n\tplaintiffs required the suit premises to carry on business in the
\n\tfront part and reside in the back part of the house.  At present,
\n\tthe respondent No.1 is serving whereby he is not able to meet the
\n\tneeds of the family and he also requires to carry on business in the
\n\tshop.  The same requirement continues and, therefore, the Civil
\n\tRevision Application should not be entertained or allowed by this
\n\tCourt.  She has further submitted that there is no substance in the
\n\tplea of challenging the findings in this Civil Revision Application
\n\tas there are concurrent findings of facts.  No person should suffer
\n\tdue to delay caused in Court proceedings and the petitioner –
\n\ttenant should not be allowed to take advantage from the fact of
\n\tinability of the Court to decide the same suit.  The respondent No.1
\n\tbeing the grandson of the original plaintiff, is not in any
\n\testablished job to enable him to match with the needs and
\n\trequirements of the family.  She has, therefore, submitted that the
\n\trequirement to have his own business is paramount consideration and
\n\the should not be compelled to carry on service.  The Courts below
\n\thave decided the subletting issue after considering the evidence
\n\ttaken on record.  The personal bonafide requirement means it is for
\n\thimself, family members and his HUF.  The respondent No.1 is not
\n\tmuch educated.  The shop is situated in prime location at Patan
\n\twhere he can start small business and on the back side, his family
\n\tcan stay.  At present, he is not having any suitable accommodation
\n\tand he has to stay in rented premises.  She has, therefore,
\n\tsubmitted that the Civil Revision Application should not be
\n\tentertained.  The suit premises remained closed for three years
\n\tinitially and thereafter, it was sublet to a new partnership firm.
\n\tThe original tenant – Ambalal Patel and Mulchandbhai Patel are
\n\tresiding at Rubi village and never come to the suit shop.  Even on
\n\tthis ground, the Civil Revision Application deserves to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs. Jhaveri in
\n\tsupport of her submission that the original tenant has sublet the
\n\tsuit premises, relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case
\n\tof Celina Coelhi Pereira (Ms.) and others V\/s. Ulhas
\n\tMahabaleshwar Kholkar and others, (2010) 1 SCC 217, it is held
\n\tthat the legal position that emerges from case law can be summarised
\n\tthus <\/p>\n
\t     In
\n\torder to prove mischief of sub-letting as a ground for eviction
\n\tunder rent control laws, two ingredients have to be established, (1)
\n\tparting with possession of tenancy or part of it by the tenant in
\n\tfavour of a third party with exclusive right of possession, and (2)
\n\tthat such parting with possession has been done without the consent
\n\tof the landlord and in lieu of compensation or rent.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Inducting
\n\ta partner or partners in the business or profession by a tenant by
\n\titself does not amount to sub-letting.  However, if the purpose of
\n\tsuch partnership is ostensible and a deed of partnership is drawn to
\n\tconceal the real transaction of sub-letting, the Court may tear the
\n\tveil of partnership to find out the real nature of transaction
\n\tentered into by the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
\t     The
\n\texistence of deed of partnership between the tenant and alleged
\n\tsub-tenant or ostensible transaction in any other form would not
\n\tpreclude the landlord from bringing on record material and
\n\tcircumstances, by adducing evidence or by means of
\n\tcross-examination, making out a case of sub-letting or parting with
\n\tpossession in tenancy premises by the tenant in favour of a third
\n\tperson.\n<\/p>\n
\t      If
\n\tthe tenant is actively associated with the partnership business and
\n\tretains the control over the tenancy premises with him, may be along
\n\twith partners, the tenant may not be said to have parted with
\n\tpossession.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Initial
\n\tburden of proving subletting is on the landlord but once he is able
\n\tto establish that a third party is in exclusive possession of the
\n\tpremises and that tenant has no legal possession of the tenanted
\n\tpremises, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove the nature of
\n\toccupation of such third party and that he (tenant) continues to
\n\thold legal possession in tenancy premises.\n<\/p>\n
\t      In
\n\tother words, initial burden lying on the landlord would stand
\n\tdischarged by adducing prima facie proof of the fact that a party
\n\tother than the tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises.
\n\tA presumption of subletting may then be raised and would amount to
\n\tproof unless rebutted.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs. Jhaveri in
\n\tsupport of her submission on bonafide requirement of the landlord,
\n\trelied on the following decisions :-\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tRamkubai (Smt.) Deceased by Lrs. And others V\/s. Hajarimal
\n\tDhokalchand Chandak and others, (1999) 6 SCC 540, it is held
\n\twhile considering the question of bonafide need of the landlord that
\n\tthe right of individual members of landlord’s family to set up any
\n\tindependent business can certainly fall within the scope of bonafide
\n\tneed of landlord.  The bonafide need of setting up business of
\n\tanybody as son in suit premises cannot be negatived on grounds that
\n\tsuch person, has since the litigation begin, taken up other
\n\temployment or work, or that another son already has a business or
\n\tthat landlord is a partner in another business.  The Court held that
\n\tthe High Court has wrongly confirmed the judgment of First Appellate
\n\tCourt setting aside the decree of eviction awarded by the Trial
\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tDeep Chandra Juneja V\/s. Lajwanti Kathuria (Smt.) Dead through
\n\tLrs., (2008) 8 SCC 497, it is held that while deciding the
\n\tbonafide requirement of landlord, the landlord is the best judge of
\n\this requirement.  The Courts have no concern to dictate how and in
\n\twhat manner he should live.  It is further held by the Court that
\n\tthe bonafide need of landlord asserted by prescribed authority,
\n\tAppellate Authority and High Court in writ petition does not call
\n\tfor an interference.  There is no illegality, infirmity or error of
\n\tjurisdiction.  Hence, it is required to be confirmed.  It is further
\n\theld that the bonafide requirement of landlord is a question of fact
\n\twhich cannot be gone into by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tAshok Kumar V\/s. Ved Prakash and others, (2010) 2 SCC 264,
\n\tthe appeal is filed by the appellant – tenant and in this
\n\tcontext, the Court held that it is not in dispute that the original
\n\tlandlord died during the pendency of the Civil Revision Application
\n\tin the High Court.  There is a faint argument of the learned counsel
\n\tfor the appellant that on such date, the requirement of the landlord
\n\thad perished.  The Court held that there is no merit in this
\n\tsubmission of the learned counsel for the appellant.  Looking at the
\n\taverments made in the eviction petition, where the original landlord
\n\thas categorically pleaded that the requirement was for his son who
\n\tpresently is the landlord because of the death of the original
\n\tplaintiff, the question of abatement of the eviction proceeding
\n\tcannot arise at all.  That apart, the submission so made by the
\n\tlearned counsel for the appellant was not even raised by the
\n\tappellant before the High Court where the original landlord died and
\n\tthe respondents have been substituted in his place.  The Court,
\n\ttherefore, did not find any substance in the said submission of the
\n\tlearned counsel for the appellant – tenant and dismissed the
\n\tappeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tSheshambal (Dead) through Lrs., V\/s. Chelur Corporation Chelur
\n\tBuilding and others, (2010) 3 SCC 470, the question before the
\n\tApex Court was whether the proceedings instituted by the deceased
\n\towners of the demise property could be continued by the legal heirs
\n\tleft by them.  The Court observed that it is not disputed that in
\n\tthe eviction petition, the owners had pleaded their own requirements
\n\tfor the premises to be occupied by them for residential as well as
\n\tcommercial purposes. The eviction petition was totally silent about
\n\tthe requirements of any member of the family of the petitioner
\n\towners left alone any member of their family who was dependent upon
\n\tthem.  That being so, the parties went to trial before the Rent
\n\tController on the basis of the case pleaded in the petition and
\n\tlimited to the requirement of the owners for their personal
\n\toccupation.  The Court further observed that neither before the Rent
\n\tController nor before the Appellate Authority was requirement in
\n\tquestion was not only the requirement of the petitioner owners of
\n\tthe premises, but also the requirement of any other member of their
\n\tfamily were dependent upon them or otherwise.  Not only that, even
\n\tin the petition filed before this Court, the requirement pleaded was
\n\tthat for the deceased widow owner of the demised premises and not of
\n\tany member of her family.  Such being the position, the Court found
\n\tit difficult to see how the legal representatives of the deceased
\n\tcan be allowed to set up a case which was never set up before the
\n\tCourts below so as to bring forth a requirement that was never
\n\tpleaded at any stage of the proceedings.  The Court further held
\n\tthat allowing the legal heirs to do so would amount permitting them
\n\tto introduce a case which is totally different from the one set up
\n\tbefore the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority or even the High
\n\tCourt.  The Court, however, made a distinction and observed that the
\n\tposition may indeed have been differentiated if in the original
\n\tpetition the petitioner owners had pleaded their own requirement and
\n\tthe requirement of any member of their family dependent upon them.
\n\tIn such a case, the demise of the original petitioners or any one of
\n\tthem may have made little difference for the person for whose
\n\tbenefit and bonafide requirement the eviction was sought could
\n\tpursue the case to prove and satisfy any such requirement.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs. Jhaveri,
\n\tlastly, in support of her submission that in view of the concurrent
\n\tfindings given by both the Courts below, the petitioner –
\n\ttenant is not entitled to any relief from this Court, relied on the
\n\tfollowing decisions :-\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of
\n\tS. P. Deshmukh V\/s. Shah Nihal Chand Waghajibai Gujarati, (1977)
\n\t3 SCC 515 wherein it is held that the High Court should not
\n\tunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India interfere with the
\n\tconcurrent findings of fact of the Rent Controller and the
\n\tCollector.  It is further held that normally, monthly tenant is
\n\tunder an obligation to pay the rent from month to month but this
\n\tobligation is subject to a contract to the contrary.  Such a
\n\tcontract need not be reflected in a formal document and can be spelt
\n\tout from the conduct of the parties, spread over a fairly long
\n\tperiod of time.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Patel
\n\tValmik Himatlal and others V\/s. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai, (1998) 7
\n\tSCC 383, it is held that the powers under Section 29(2) are
\n\trevisional powers with which the High Court is clothed. It empowers
\n\tthe High Court to correct errors which may make the decision
\n\tcontrary to law and which errors go to the root of the decision but
\n\tit does not vest the High Court with the power to rehear the matter
\n\tand reappreciate the evidence. The mere fact that a different view
\n\tis possible on reappreciation of evidence cannot be a ground for
\n\texercise of the revisional jurisdiction.  The High Court cannot
\n\tsubstitute its own findings on a question of fact for the findings
\n\trecorded by the Courts below on reappraisal of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving heard
\n\tthe learned Counsels appearing for the parties and having considered
\n\ttheir rival submissions in the background of the orders and
\n\tjudgments passed by the Courts below, as well as the relevant
\n\tstatutory provisions contained in the Bombay Rent Control Act and
\n\tthe decided case law on the subject, the Court is of the view that
\n\tthe concurrent findings of facts given by the Courts below both on
\n\tthe invocation and applicability of Sections 13 (1) (e) as well as
\n\t13 (1) (g) of the Act, dose not call for any interference by this
\n\tCourt while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 29
\n\t(2) of the Act and hence, the Civil Revision Application deserves to
\n\tbe dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the
\n\tperusal of the issues framed by the Trial Court at Exh.14, it
\n\tappears that the Trial Court, in all, framed 13 issues.  However,
\n\tfor the purpose of this revision petition, the relevant issues are
\n\tIssue Nos.3,5,6 & 9.  Issue Nos.3 and 9 are in relation to
\n\tapplicability of Section 13 (1) (e) whereas, issue Nos.5 and 6 are
\n\tin relation to applicability of Section 13 (1) (g) of the Rent Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe lower
\n\tAppellate Court, after appreciating the evidence – oral as
\n\twell as documentary on record and after considering the issues
\n\tframed in relation to Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act, came to the
\n\tconclusion that the defendant No.3 – Patel Ambalal Prabhudas
\n\thas not proved that he is occupant – partner and the
\n\tpartnership deed is genuine and not sham or bogus.  The Court
\n\tfurther found that the defendant No.3, the sole tenant, remained
\n\twith the legal possession of the suit premises and he has never
\n\tparted with the possession.  The Court has taken into consideration
\n\tthe evidence of defendant No.3, one more partner of defendant No.4
\n\tfirm – Shri Chimanlal Balubhai, partnership deed etc.  The
\n\tvery fact that the partnership deed, nowhere clearly states that the
\n\tdefendant No.3 – original tenant has thrown the tenancy rights
\n\tof the suit premises in the assets of the firm.  Clause 19 of the
\n\tDeed merely states that the defendant No.3 – original tenant –
\n\tpartner shall give the cooperation whenever the suit rent note is to
\n\tbe transferred in the name of the firm.  Clause 20 of the Deed says
\n\tthat if at all the landlord files a suit for the purpose of
\n\tpossession, the partner No.4 i.e. the tenant, Shri Ambalal Prabhudas
\n\tPatel will have to bear expenses.  If the suit premises were
\n\ttransferred to the partnership firm and the firm was enjoying the
\n\tbenefits of tenancy rights, there was no need to bear the expenses
\n\tby the original tenant.  There is nothing in the partnership deed
\n\twhich indicates that after dissolution of the firm, the possession
\n\tof the suit premises will remain with the defendant No.3 – the
\n\toriginal tenant.  It has also come on record that the defendant No.3
\n\tis an agriculturist and he is residing at his village Runi.  The
\n\tlower Appellate Court, while confirming the decree of eviction
\n\tpassed by the Trial Court under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act,
\n\tclearly held that no oral or documentary evidence reliable is
\n\tproduced by the defendants to prove that the firm is genuine and the
\n\tdefendant No.3 has not sublet, transferred or assigned his legal
\n\tpossession or his interest of suit premises to the firm.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true
\n\tthat merely because the tenant continues to carry on the business in
\n\tthe same shop as hither to, but takes in other partners, the legal
\n\tpossession of the shop does not change hands.  It is equally true
\n\tthat taking in a partner in a business does not amount to subletting
\n\tthe premises so as to attract the bar of Section 13 (1) (e) of the
\n\tAct.  However, the intention of the parties and purpose behind
\n\tcreation of partnership firm is an important factor to be taken into
\n\tconsideration by the Court.  The Apex Court, after considering the
\n\tentire case law, summarized the correct legal position on this
\n\tsubject in the case of Celina Coelhi Pereira (Ms.) and others
\n\tV\/s. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others (Supra) and, inter
\n\talia, held that if the purpose
\n\tof partnership is ostensible and a deed of partnership is drawn to
\n\tconceal the real transaction of subletting, the Court may tear the
\n\tveil of partnership to find out the real nature of transaction
\n\tentered into by the tenant.  Both the Courts below have found that
\n\tthe plaintiff – landlord succeeded in bringing on record
\n\tmaterial and circumstances, by adducing evidence and by means of
\n\tcross-examination, and in making out a case of subletting or parting
\n\twith possession in tenancy premises by the tenant in favour of other
\n\tpartners.  This Court, therefore, does not find any convincing
\n\treason to disturb the said findings recorded by the Courts below and
\n\tupturn their decisions.  The petition, therefore, fails on this
\n\tground.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tCourts below have passed and\/or confirmed the decree of eviction on
\n\tthe ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord under Section 13
\n\t(1) (g) of the Act.  The suit was filed by late Shri Chunibhai
\n\tUjambhai.  He was of 65 years age at the  time of filing of the
\n\tsuit.  He expired during the pendency of the suit.  His elder son,
\n\tBabulal Chunilal was brought on record and he continued the suit.
\n\tThe suit premises came to his possession under the partition.  Even
\n\totherwise, it was given to him under the Will.  On appreciation of
\n\tevidence, the Courts below found that the defendant No.3, the sole
\n\ttenant is an agriculturist and he has no interest in keeping
\n\tpossession as he handed over the possession of suit premises to the
\n\tdefendant No.4 firm.  The Courts have also considered that Shri
\n\tSubodhbhai, son of Babulal and Grandson of the original plaintiff
\n\twas unemployed and he himself was residing in rented premises.  The
\n\tCourt, therefore, came to the conclusion that the element of
\n\trequirement of plaintiff is
\n\tcontinued and that the plaintiff is in dire need of the suit
\n\tpremises.  It is settled position in law and the Courts have taken
\n\tthe view that while considering the question of bonafide need of the
\n\tlandlord, that the right of individual members of landlord’s family
\n\tto set up any independent business can certainly fall within the
\n\tscope of bonafide need of landlord.  The Courts have also held that
\n\twhile deciding the bonafide requirement of landlord, the landlord is
\n\tthe best judge of his requirement.  The Courts have no concern to
\n\tdictate how and in what manner he should live.  From the record, it
\n\tbecomes clear that, during the pendency of this petition before this
\n\tCourt, Shri Babulal Chunilal expired.  His legal heirs are brought
\n\ton record of this petition.  The respondent No.1\/2 Shri Subodhbhai
\n\tis the son of the deceased.  Before the Courts below, it was
\n\tspecific case of the plaintiff that his son is unemployed and suit
\n\tpremises is required for his business purpose.  In view of the law
\n\tlaid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok
\n\tKumar V\/s. Ved
\n\tPrakash and others (Supra),
\n\tthe Court does not accept the submissions of Mr. Shelat that because
\n\tof the death of the plaintiff, the requirement of the landlord had
\n\tperished.  Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
\n\tcase and legal position, the Court is of the view that the decree of
\n\teviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the lower
\n\tAppellate Court under Section 13 (1) (g) of the Act, does not call
\n\tfor any interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the
\n\tabove decision, the Court does not think it necessary to deal with
\n\tthe judgments cited by Mr. Shelat in relation to pleadings etc. as
\n\tthey are not applicable to the facts of the present case.  The Civil
\n\tApplication filed by the petitioner – tenants for production
\n\tof additional evidence also deserves to be rejected in view of the
\n\tfact that the partnership firm itself is held to be not genuine and
\n\tsham and hence, its return of income, assessment etc. would not make
\n\tany difference for arriving at the conclusion by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe above view of the matter, both these Civil Revision Application
\n\tas well as Civil Application are rejected with cost.  The cost shall
\n\tbe borne by the present petitioner No.3 – original defendant
\n\tNo.3. The present petitioners – original defendants are
\n\tdirected to evict the suit premises and hand over the possession to
\n\tthe present respondents within two months from the date of receipt
\n\tof certified copy of this judgment or from the date of receipt of
\n\twrit from the Court, whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[K. A. PUJ, J.]<\/p>\n
Savariya<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CRA\/196\/1993 45\/ 45 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 196 of 1993 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10830 of 2005 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 196 of 1993 For Approval […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138752","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether vs The on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-08T20:44:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-08T20:44:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":7642,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-08T20:44:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-08T20:44:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-08T20:44:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010"},"wordCount":7642,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010","name":"Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-08T20:44:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-the-on-22-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether vs The on 22 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138752","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138752"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138752\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}